Musings and Sometimes Rants about the non-equal status of Fathers in Family Law and Parenting. Additionally periodic comparisons to the treatment of men compared to women in other areas including health care.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

According to Statistics Canada, over one-third of all children living in poverty in Canada live with a lone mother who earns zero income. At least half live with a lone mother who earns not enough income to support herself, let alone a child.

So why isn’t the government interested in rounding up all these “deadbeat moms” with the same vigour that it pursues “deadbeat dads”? It can’t be because they are all young, uneducated mothers of infants, who are incapable of working. In fact, the average age of lone mothers is 38. Moreover, lone mothers have higher educational levels than lone fathers. Yet lone fathers find a way to earn twice as much income as lone mothers, which is why child poverty is rare among lone fathers.

If our courts and our politicians truly cared about the best interests of children, they would make laws that (a) give custody to working dads much more often than at present; and (b) tell single moms to get a job or lose their kids. Is that too harsh? Then why are loving fathers routinely subjected to this inhumane treatment — dozens of times every day in Canada? Grant A. Brown, Edmonton.

I offered some comments on Mr. Brown's letter on the letters page as follows:

Mr. Brown's letter with respect to the bizarre new law in Ontario confiscating a father’s vehicle is instrumental in showing how our country, and this Province in particular, is turning into a gynocracy. We have multiple laws targeting men as unfit to be a custodial parent after divorce (but we seem to be OK before this happens), even though the Divorce act is Gender Neutral (it clearly states maximum contact for both parents is important).

Judges make up the rules as they go along awarding over 90% of sole physical custody to moms. Why? Judges receive training from a secretive organization called the National Judicial Institute. Within this training they are told men have power, women are victims and it is their job to ensure moms get the entitlements at the expense of men - and sadly - at the expense of the children. Dads seldom get more than a visitation schedule of 15%. Yet, mom's boyfriend gets to see them 24/7 setting in motion many negative outcomes for children that last a lifetime. These range from abuse to being killed as mom and her new partner are far more likely to bring harm to the child than dad.

Family Court Judges are, by far, the most negative and insidious social engineers in Canada. They deplore 50-50 shared custody for reasons already mentioned yet they then send the largest group of people into poverty by awarding sole physical custody to mom. Single mothers are then revered, but yet, they are the single largest group of deadbeats in Canada. They live off dad with alimony and child support, the latter of which is tax free but taxable to dad. This income does not show up on any statements, including from the CRA, as it is tax free. They collect welfare, live in subsidized housing and receive bonuses in the form of child tax credits. There are lots of incentives to work on yet they whine and complain about how hard done by they are. It is as though the system is set up to encourage single motherhood and cater to the whining.

Judges are responsible for billions upon billions of tax dollars to be input into the cult of single motherhood while, at the same time, denigrating the children’s biological fathers.

Want to save tax dollars, decrease poverty, and reduce divorce. Pass 50-50 equal shared parenting legislation and free up mom to get some further training and a job while allowing children to bask in the glow of two loving parents looking after their needs not the current acrimonious and adversarial system lawyers love. They make billions from it. Eighty percent of Canadians across all political stripes support Bill C-422 for equal shared parenting. The Canadian Bar Association and Feminist Lawyers like Pamela Cross and Tasha Kheiriddin don’t. Who is right? I’d vote for the 80% of Canadians.

The Minister's in the incompetent Liberal Government enacting these draconian laws are Madeleine Meilleur, a feminist Liberal lawyer, in charge of the Mom Stazi Police collection agency called FRO, who will enforce these laws. Laurel Broten is the Minister responsible for Status of Women and is also a Feminist Liberal lawyer and has at least $208,000,000 at her disposal for women's issues, none for men. Kathleen Wynne, Minister of Transportation has this on her books now as the person responsible for the safety on our highways. She is a pro-feminist sycophant along with her male colleagues in the cabinet who see this new law as useful in their war against fathers. It certainly is a highway safety issue to seize a father's car, which he likely needs to try and keep a job. All of the money taken from the father as a result of these rules will not go to his children. it will help employ more public servants.

About Me

I am Politically active and right of centre on most issues with the odd exception such as legalization of "Mary Jane".
I advocate on changes to Family Law - an incredibly dysfunctional arena where parents are pitted against one another and children are the victims.
My picture will sometimes show me as a younger man simply because I like them.

Feminism On Trial Powered By Ringsurf

Counting 1 - 2 - 3

Leading causes of Injury to Women 2006

In 2006, unintentional falls were the leading cause of nonfatal injury among women of every age group, and rates generally increased with age. Women aged 65 years and older had the highest rate of injury due to unintentional falls (59.7 per 1,000 women), while slightly more than 19 per 1,000 women aged 18–34 and 35–44 years experienced fall-related injuries. Unintentional injuries sustained as motor vehicle occupants were the second leading cause of injury among 18- to 34-year-olds (18.7 per 1,000), while unintentional overexertion was the second leading cause of injury among women aged 35–44 and 45–64 years (13.7 and 9.3 per 1,000, respectively). Among women aged 65 years and older, being unintentionally struck by or against an object was the second leading cause of injury (5.7 per 1,000).

Injury related Emergency Department Visits

Unintentional and intentional injuries each represented a higher proportion of emergency department (ED) visits for men than women in 2005. Among women and men aged 18 years and older, unintentional injuries accounted for 19.9 and 27.5 percent of ED visits, respectively, while intentional injuries, or assault, represented 1.4 and 2.7 percent of visits, respectively. Among both women and men, unintentional injury accounted for a higher percentage of ED visits among those living in non-metropolitan areas, while adults living in metropolitan areas had a slightly higher percentage of ED visits due to intentional injury.